NURS 651 nursing ethics Assignment
NURS 651 nursing ethics Assignment
It is not uncommon for nurses advanced practice nurses to encounter situations where a patient’s wishes regarded their health are in conflict with the family’s wishes, professional experience, or evidence hence creating ethical dilemmas (Haahr et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important for an advanced practice nurse to make informed decisions that can positively impact the patient’s condition. The case considered in this assignment is for a 60-year-old man who was diagnosed with inclusive body myositis several years ago and is currently facing a rapid decline in his condition. While the patient prefers to be at home and get end-of-life care from there, the wife is of the opinion that her husband is admitted to the inpatient care setting.
Making a better decision regarding this case requires particular assessment information. Inclusive body myositis exposes the patients to falls; hence this patient is at risk of falling (Weihl, 2019). I would assess the patient’s quality of life and ability to undertake daily life activities. Assessing the proficiency of the home caregiving would be key in determining whether the partner can offer good care and give moral support.
An appropriate response to this scenario requires that I consider ethics as an advanced practice nurse. Guided by nursing ethics, I would strive to educate the family and the patient to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge regarding the condition and how the family can help take care of the patient. After the assessment, I would also collaborate with the patient’s wife and other family members to help come up with an appropriate care plan which is likely to have a better impact on the patient’s condition. These actions are in accordance with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, which involve doing the right and good thing for the patient and doing no harm (McDermott-Levy et al., 2018). I would also ensure that I treat the patient’s medical details with confidentiality.
References
Haahr, A., Norlyk, A., Martinsen, B., & Dreyer, P. (2020). Nurses experiences of ethical dilemmas: A review. Nursing Ethics, 27(1), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0969733019832941
McDermott-Levy, R., Leffers, J., & Mayaka, J. (2018). Ethical principles and guidelines of global health nursing practice. Nursing Outlook, 66(5), 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2018.06.013
Weihl, C. C. (2019). Sporadic inclusion body myositis and other rimmed vacuolar myopathies. CONTINUUM: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, 25(6), 1586-1598. Doi: 10.1212/CON.0000000000000790
As an advanced practice nurse, you will run into situations where a patient’s wishes about his or her health conflict with evidence, your own experience, or a family’s wishes. This may create an ethical dilemma. What do you do when these situations occur?
In this Lab Assignment, you will explore evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations for specific scenarios.
To Prepare
Review the scenarios provided by your instructor for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your scenarios.
- Based on the scenarios provided:
- Select one scenario, and reflect on the material presented throughout this course.
- What necessary information would need to be obtained about the patient through health assessments and diagnostic tests?
- Consider how you would respond as an advanced practice nurse. Review evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applicable to the scenarios you selected.
The Lab Assignment
Write a detailed one-page narrative (not a formal paper) explaining the health assessment information required for a diagnosis of your selected patient (include the scenario number). Explain how you would respond to the scenario as an advanced practice nurse using evidence-based practice guidelines and applying ethical considerations. Justify your response using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.
By Day 6 of Week 11
Submit your Assignment.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 11 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 11 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 6 of Week 11
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 11 Assignment
Week 11: The Ethics Behind Assessment
Consider the following scenarios:
- You are a nurse at a large county hospital. One of your patients is leaning toward selecting a certain radical treatment for cancer, to which the family is in opposition. The family is concerned about making the correct decision and asks for your advice.
- The state of Oregon has passed a “Death with Dignity” act that allows for euthanasia in certain situations. One of your patients suffering from terminal cancer is thinking of moving there to take advantage of this law and asks your opinion.
Throughout this course, you have explored a wide range of health assessments and abnormal examination findings. Although you have
predominantly focused on the procedural aspects of health assessment, this week, you will focus on ethical considerations that should be taken into account when advising patients or their families.
This week, you will consider how evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations factor into health assessments. You will also evaluate health assessment concepts related to sports physicals and well-child and well-woman examinations.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply evidence-based practice guidelines to make an informed healthcare decision
- Apply ethical considerations to a health assessment response
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles relating to sports physicals and well-child and well-woman examinations
- Identify concepts, theories, and principles related to advanced health assessment
Learning Resources
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 651 nursing ethics Assignment
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
- Chapter 24, “Sports Participation Evaluation”In this chapter, the authors describe the process of a sports participation evaluation. The chapter also states the most common conditions encountered in a sports participation evaluation.
- Chapter 25, “Putting It All Together”In this chapter, the authors tie together the concepts introduced in previous chapters. In particular, the chapter has a strong emphasis on the patient-caregiver relationship.
Tingle, J. & Cribb, A. (2014). Nursing law and ethics (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Document: Final Exam Review (Word document)
Required Media (click to expand/reduce)
Module 4 Introduction
Dr. Tara Harris reviews the overall expectations for Module 4. Consider how you will manage your time as you review your media and Learning Resources for your Case Study Lab Assignment and your Final exam (3m).
The patient is in advanced-stage cancer, and the effective discussion should be on life care and discussion of wishes and needs. In the case presented, the patient has tested positive for advanced-stage cancer and is presented in the emergency unit for cardiac arrest. In this write-up, I will provide a detailed narrative explaining the health assessment information required for a diagnosis regarding the presented case.
I would determine the cardiac arrest using an ECG and the life-saving measures as defined in the ACL protocols (Nelson & Lewis, 2017). Once I am able to stabilize the patient, I would ask the boyfriend if the patient has an advanced directive or will concerning the resuscitation status. The advanced directive is a legal document relaying more information on the life savings of the patient (Rossetti, 2017). In this case, I would ask the boyfriend who can connect to the next of kin in case the boyfriend is not the next of kin. This would happen if the patient is unconscious or does not have the mental capacity to make important decisions. Effective decisions for resuscitation would wait, but until then, I will make every attempt to stabilize the patient.
I will respect the wish of the patient and the family. If the patient and the family agree that they need all interventions and the patient is stable on life support machines, then further investigation into brain function and viability will be conducted (Ozmen et al., 2019). Diagnostic testing would reveal the extent of brain damage and cardiopulmonary stability that would aid in determining the status of my patient and viability. I will then discuss the patient’s condition with the family to get ready for any result that would come from the treatment offered to the patient.
A confirmation that the brain cells of the patient are dead and the family is not ready to stop the life support measures, the hospital can change the status of the patient to “do not resuscitate” with approval from two physicians (Nelson & Lewis, 2017). However, providers will ensure that the family confirms the decision. This would be important in avoiding ethical dilemmas.
References
Nelson, A., & Lewis, A. (2017). Determining brain death: basic approach and controversial issues. American Journal of Critical Care, 26(6), 496-500. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2017540
Ozmen, O., Aksoy, M., Atalay, C., Aydin, M. D., Dostbil, A., Ince, I., & Sener, E. (2019). Are unresponsive dilated pupils an indicator for brain death? an evaluation of Edinger Westphal nucleus in rabbits with brain death. Annals of Medical Research, 26(10), 2376-2381. https://annalsmedres.org/index.php/aomr/article/view/3711
Rossetti, A. O. (2017). Clinical neurophysiology for neurological prognostication of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Clinical Neurophysiology Practice, 2, 76-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnp.2017.03.001
Sports Participation Evaluation – Week 11 (12m)
Assignment 1: Lab
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6512_Week_11_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Write a detailed 1-page narrative (not a formal paper) addressing the following:
· Explain the health assessment information required for a diagnosis of your selected patient (include the scenario number). |
Points Range: 30 (30%) – 35 (35%)
The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains detailed health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with correct scenario number included. |
Points Range: 24 (24%) – 29 (29%)
The response accurately explains health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with correct scenario number included. |
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 23 (23%)
The response vaguely explains health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with scenario number, correct or inaccurate, included. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
The response lacks and/or inaccurately explains assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with scenario number inaccurate or missing. |
|
| · Explain how you would respond to the scenario as an advanced practice nurse using evidence-based practice guidelines and applying ethical considerations. Justify your response using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains detailed evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with clear, accurate, and thorough justification using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature. |
Points Range: 39 (39%) – 44 (44%)
The response accurately explains evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with accurate justification using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. |
Points Range: 33 (33%) – 38 (38%)
The response vaguely explains evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with vague and/or inaccurate justification using two to three different references from current evidence-based literature. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 32 (32%)
The response inaccurately explains or lacks evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with inaccurate or missing justification using two or fewer references from current evidence-based literature. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||